Which is why I take my approach with these threads....its all about having fun and a good laugh because you can't show facts that tells someone their religion is false and expect them to belive it.

On this we agree. Facts and rational discussion rarely changes anyone's mind. Research into human behaviour and evolutionary psychology shows that most of what we think, believe and do is processed at a subconscious level. In simplistic terms, we are largely emotionally driven. The rational brain comes along later and makes up pretty stories to justify our beliefs or actions. This is a truth advertisers, preachers and politicians know all too well. And they are all good at exploiting it.

This is why science is such a leap forward in human civilization. It is a process that intrinsically accepts that we are poor rational thinkers. But through the feedback loop of data, theory, prediction, experiment/observation, and back to more data, it intrinsically leads to improved understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Science is not perfect -- no human endeavour can be perfect -- but it is the best tool we have for forcing our fundamentally irrational selves to see what is really going on.

I don't disagree with your 'fix,' but I do wonder where in the world there is a "democratic, free-market society." Seems like an oxymoron. One might say that Somalia is a free-market society, but it is hardly democratic.

Also, I wonder how a free-market society justifies its consequences to future people. For instance, before the EPA, we had awful pollution in the USA. It was so bad that we had to impose regulations. Now we are fairly clean, but we will be forced to impose regulations on greenhouse gas emissions because some people refuse to behave responsibly on their on accord. Had we maintained the freedom to pollute with impunity, we would have worse air than China and worse water than Brasil.

There are just two reasons for regulations: One is safety. The other is that somebody acted like an a-hole, and that action affected lots of other people.

Agreed:

"I really like number three, but oddly enough, it seems likely to be the hardest to impose, implement and regulate in a democratic, regulated free-market society.

If in doubt, then consider the enormity of the US Code of Federal Regulations. I'm not advocating for no regulations, or suggesting the purity of democracies or how free their markets really are. It's only relative as compared to other systems. The amount of regulation is the crux, because often there is a corresponding loss of freedom. Often times that individual loss is the best for society and so should prevail, but other times not. That's why political compromise to reach consensus is so critical in a democracy, and so lacking these days, at least in the US. In an authoritative system, you would only have to put your dissenters in jail or discredit them -- problem solved.

This is why science is such a leap forward in human civilization. It is a process that intrinsically accepts that we are poor rational thinkers. But through the feedback loop of data, theory, prediction, experiment/observation, and back to more data, it intrinsically leads to improved understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Science is not perfect -- no human endeavour can be perfect -- but it is the best tool we have for forcing our fundamentally irrational selves to see what is really going on.

As a Scientist Myself....who ever doubted Science...
The MMGWC doesn't require Science to support their belief...they just call it "consensus" and sha-zam...the Religion using Science as a cover continues....

On this we agree. Facts and rational discussion rarely changes anyone's mind. Research into human behaviour and evolutionary psychology shows that most of what we think, believe and do is processed at a subconscious level. In simplistic terms, we are largely emotionally driven. The rational brain comes along later and makes up pretty stories to justify our beliefs or actions. This is a truth advertisers, preachers and politicians know all too well. And they are all good at exploiting it.

This is why science is such a leap forward in human civilization. It is a process that intrinsically accepts that we are poor rational thinkers. But through the feedback loop of data, theory, prediction, experiment/observation, and back to more data, it intrinsically leads to improved understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Science is not perfect -- no human endeavour can be perfect -- but it is the best tool we have for forcing our fundamentally irrational selves to see what is really going on.

Appreciated this Mike. Very well stated. And it is thought provoking to consider how much of the dissent, at least in the US, has more to do with a profound distrust of the political actors who are pushing the issue -- in this case AGW -- and perhaps less to do with the actual science. The science, after all, is complex and difficult for most to fully understand, but other areas of incompetence of elected officials is all too clear for many, and is increasingly crossing party lines.

As a Scientist Myself....who ever doubted Science...
The MMGWC doesn't require Science to support their belief...they just call it "consensus" and sha-zam...the Religion using Science as a cover continues....

And for non-scientists, the "consensus" is much easier to understand and have an emotional reaction to than the actual science, which of course remains incomprehensible.

Which is why I take my approach with these threads....its all about having fun and a good laugh because you can't show facts that tells someone their religion is false and expect them to belive it.

So many sensible people here. I feel bad that all your earnest efforts and patient explanations have failed to reach me. The fault is obviously mine.

Help a sailor out. Nothing presented so far (and there's lots) seems to genuinely make an impact with me on the central facts that the climate scientists have done their jobs properly and have reached a valid and useful conclusion. It's simply not reasonable to me that they've all screwed up, or that the scientific process has been perverted, or all the scientists have colluded on achieving some evil end.

So let's go another direction. Forget the science. There must be a serious, grown-up, realpolitik reason for your positions. Why is it essential that we not let the finding of AGW reach acceptance? What's at risk? How does accepting and acting on AGW threaten us more than the climate change itself?

As a Scientist Myself....who ever doubted Science...
The MMGWC doesn't require Science to support their belief...they just call it "consensus" and sha-zam...the Religion using Science as a cover continues....

See ... you've just proved my point. Thanks .

I guess this is why I engage in these discussions. It's not so much about the question of rapid climate change or not, it is the fact that so many apparently rational people seem willing to abandon science as a means to understanding the world.

Not to be too grandiose about this, but the anti-science sentiment does seem to be a growing phenomena, most especially in the USA. This is not only my observation. Much has been written about it. And no, this is not America-bashing. It is a phenomena found in all western developed countries, as well as the Muslim world. It just appears to have growing strength in the USA, which is of course completely ironic given that the US has been the world's scientific leader for the past, what, fifty years?

If in doubt, then consider the enormity of the US Code of Federal Regulations. I'm not advocating for no regulations, or suggesting the purity of democracies or how free their markets really are. It's only relative as compared to other systems. The amount of regulation is the crux, because often there is a corresponding loss of freedom...

I think that you are implying that the USA has more regulation than other places? If so, I could offer two reasons: 1) The USA has more selfish a-holes than other places have; 2) The democracy in the USA is strong enough to limit the actions of a-holes to a societally-acceptable level.

I hate regulations. But even more, I hate when a-holes, in order to serve their own selfish interests, adversely affect us to the point that we need to create regulations.

On this we agree. Facts and rational discussion rarely changes anyone's mind. Research into human behaviour and evolutionary psychology shows that most of what we think, believe and do is processed at a subconscious level. In simplistic terms, we are largely emotionally driven. The rational brain comes along later and makes up pretty stories to justify our beliefs or actions. This is a truth advertisers, preachers and politicians know all too well. And they are all good at exploiting it.

This is why science is such a leap forward in human civilization. It is a process that intrinsically accepts that we are poor rational thinkers. But through the feedback loop of data, theory, prediction, experiment/observation, and back to more data, it intrinsically leads to improved understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Science is not perfect -- no human endeavour can be perfect -- but it is the best tool we have for forcing our fundamentally irrational selves to see what is really going on.

So well said.

I cringe when people "on the side of science" use terms like "scientific fact", when the whole purpose of it, the whole benefit of the scientific process, is that there really are no hard and set "facts". Science only claims to make our best-guess at what might happen next, given our observations to date.

When one scientific conclusion is no longer predicting future behavior as well as some other model, the scientific community moves on to the better model. (Slowly, because we are humans full of emotional baggage.)

I personally disagree with folks who trust the results of Exxon scientists more than Academia, but I can see their conclusions (in some cases) are also reached through a scientific method: one that has observed all the self serving tribal ridiculousness in human organizations, or has PERSONALLY observed little in direct evidence of climate change, and therefore produces the theory that the scientific community is lying and man-made climate change isn't a concern.

But I'd also say Occam's razor could be useful for weighing these two possibilities: "The whole of the academic scientific community involved in some great boondoggle meant to slow progress of the very economies that sustain them" vs. "Maybe there really is some uncertainty out there we should get our heads around before we accidentally cook ourselves off this planet."

Anyways, science is imperfect, by design! And as long as people don't start burning down universities it'll keep moving us forward.

So let's go another direction. Forget the science. There must be a serious, grown-up, realpolitik reason for your positions. Why is it essential that we not let the finding of AGW reach acceptance? What's at risk? How does accepting and acting on AGW threaten us more than the climate change itself?

The "solutions" proposed are mostly economic and not scientific. That's the main concern. I don't care whether or not AGW is real. But the "solutions" would surely kill a lot of people. We have already heard many on this thread advocate "population control" as the only means to solve the problem. If that doesn't scare you nothing will.

Appreciated this Mike. Very well stated. And it is thought provoking to consider how much of the dissent, at least in the US, has more to do with a profound distrust of the political actors who are pushing the issue -- in this case AGW -- and perhaps less to do with the actual science. The science, after all, is complex and difficult for most to fully understand, but other areas of incompetence of elected officials is all too clear for many, and is increasingly crossing party lines.

Yes, I think you're right Exile. It does appear linked to your country's increasingly corrosive politics over the last decade or so. But is that cause or effect? It's certainly not unique to the US. We've seen similar themes here in Canada, particularly associated with our most recently unseated federal (Conservative and conservative) government.

It's all very interesting, especially given the recent research around the limitations of human rationality. Oh, but wait... if people are rejecting the findings around climate change then are they may also be rejecting the findings around the limits of human cognitive abilities.

One guy. The conclusion of AGW must be upended because of what Greenpeace (advocacy group, not science body, remember) did to one guy?

The non-scandal referred to as "Climategate", where outsiders tried, and failed, to show that the data were improperly used, similarly arose from an email theft. There's also a shitload of occasions where outside actors made every effort to harrass and thwart many climate scientists from working or speaking.

I personally think that using any scientist as a political football is repellent. But only the anti-AGW side is trying to imply that the whole field, and the scientific process itself, are less than honourable.

I agree with you that there were likely shenanigans on both sides, and that they predictably backfired when it comes to the credibility of the actual scientists and their respective positions. But it's not simply a question of those on the AGW side being personally corrupted or the process itself being less than honorable. It's more a matter of a process where major political leaders preordained the outcome, directed huge sums of money to public & private academic institutions where entirely new depts. and careers were created, and highly politicized the scientific process. Knowing the nature of human beings as we do -- even those who are trained to be rational & objective -- there are many who question the ability to resist conforming to an increasing consensus, especially in an area that is highly uncertain and filled with variables.

Which is why I take my approach with these threads....its all about having fun and a good laugh because you can't show facts that tells someone their religion is false and expect them to belive it.

I agree. This topic has been nothing if not amusing.
For me, it simply demonstrates that as a community we are no more than a cross section of society and reflect the ideas that are put before us by those who somehow help to serve our personal agenda whether or not those ideas have any connection with reality.
And that reality can be pretty much anything that you want it to be depending upon perspective.

The "solutions" proposed are mostly economic and not scientific. That's the main concern. I don't care whether or not AGW is real. But the "solutions" would surely kill a lot of people. We have already heard many on this thread advocate "population control" as the only means to solve the problem. If that doesn't scare you nothing will.

Thanks. I sense that this is at the core of the anti-AGW sentiment here; that there is fear would (possibly through misunderstanding) that the prescriptions would cause more harm to society than the as yet uncertain consequences of AGW.

If that's the case... I wish people would man-up (sorry person-up) and state that, instead of the farce that there's something seriously wrong with the science.

Because then a more useful discussion is possible. Personally I'm not after a New World Order, or soshulist utopia. I want to move FORWARD, with all the problems we have. But attacking the science and its practitioners in the way it's currently being done is like poking our own eyes out. The only answer to incomplete or uncertain science is more science, not denying it.

Y
It's all very interesting, especially given the recent research around the limitations of human rationality. Oh, but wait... if people are rejecting the findings around climate change then are they may also be rejecting the findings around the limits of human cognitive abilities.

Circles within circles...

A big part of the controversy regarding climate change is the continued use of it for political gain, not the science.

In the U.S., there is a two-party system in place, and they're both playing games with almost every issue, instead of rational compromise. Turns out the gamesmanship is more valuable politically.